1 of 4
1
Global Warming Scandal
Posted: 07 April 2008 12:54 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2008-04-07

I am dismayed that our science writers for CFI are unaware of the turmoil within the scientific community regarding global warming.  It is simply incorrect that the international scientific community is unanimous in its support of the IPCC.  Quite the opposite is the case.  The IPCC lost all but two of its climate scientists because the original research papers were, in my opinion, fraudulently edited to remove conclusions that were not in support of the political position taken by the IPCC.  No clear human contribution to global warming was found by any of the climate scientists who did the original work over ten years ago.  However, there has appeared over two billion dollars for research grants today, an increase from about two million dollars available in the early nineties.  Three orders of magnitude more money is a big incentive to hide a fabrication.

The hard data that has been produced over the past decade has shown clearly that human activity has no measurable effect on the temperature of the planet.  The contribution of CO2, methane and other gases are dwarfed by water vapor and their effects are lost in the experimental error of the measurements.  There is no correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the planet.  The sun is the cause of these temperature cycles and they are as predictable as the seasons.  Historically, warmer is better in general, not worse.

It is shameful that a Nobel was awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC.  Their work was entirely political in nature.  The many errors in Gore’s movie are required to be included in science classes and textbooks in the UK.  Virtually nothing that Gore said about the science of global warming is correct.  I purchased and read four books on the topic when it first gained international attention in the mid-nineties.  None of them agreed with the IPCC then.  Now there is an impressive new list of books which clarify the topic and expose the dishonesty found in the political arena.

My favorite source of proper science publications on this topic is the web site, JunkScience.com.  Steve Milloy is a great watchdog and exposes many other science errors in the media.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2008 01:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14

Hello Rick and welcome to the forum.

We’ve had a few threads on this already; check out HERE and HERE for example.

FYI junkscience.com is not a scientific website, and Steven Milloy is not a climatologist, but rather a lawyer and scholar at various well funded, free-enterprise think-tanks, for example the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The CEI is funded by money from, among other places, Amoco and Texaco. You can see more about issues they have had with global warming HERE. You can also read more about Milloy’s background HERE, and his (apparently surreptitious) funding by ExxonMobil HERE.

To be fair, none of this necessarily means that the arguments they provide are bad, only that they ought to be taken with large grains of salt.

The real problem for people interested in the science, however, is that virtually the entire scientific community agrees that human-caused global warming is real. For example, note this list of scientific organizations:

U.S. National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Physical Society
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Quaternary Association
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
European Geosciences Union
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
International Council for Science
European Science Foundation

These organizations have all released statements backing the assertion that global warming is real and that it is most likely at least partly human-caused.

As Wiki states, “With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.”

Re. the “scientific consensus”, in 2006 the AAAS released a statement on that very matter, which you can read HERE: “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.”

[ Edited: 07 April 2008 01:26 PM by dougsmith ]
 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2008 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2008-04-01
dougsmith - 07 April 2008 01:22 PM

The real problem for people interested in the science, however, is that virtually the entire scientific community agrees that human-caused global warming is real…

Hi and emmmm….. Errrrrrrr…....  Nope, there is no real consensus here it is not even close to a consensus

Over 400 prominent scientists have voiced their concerns to a US senate committee about Man Made Global Warming

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

I found the above report very informative, and the comments by the scientists even more so, what comes across very clearly is that there new data and research going on, and not a lot if it is supporting the MMGW theory, in fact with this group of 400 scientists none of it supports MMGW.

If you can be bothered to read all of the report it is well worth the read but if you cant then I have cited just a few of the comments below:

USA Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary.

“I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added:  “The earth will not die.”

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling:

“To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979:

“Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”

Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers:

“Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.”

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change 2001:

“The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain’t so.”

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant:

“To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”

Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming:

“CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore’s movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University:

critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University:

“In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth’s surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2008 02:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14
Vince - 07 April 2008 01:48 PM

Nope, there is no real consensus here it is not even close to a consensus

Over 400 prominent scientists have voiced their concerns to a US senate committee about Man Made Global Warming

Hello Vince, another new poster. Two in one thread!

400 scientists is a very small number. For example, there have been numerous attacks on darwinian evolution with hundreds of scientist signatories, e.g., HERE hosted on the Discovery Institute’s website where they have 500 scientists signing such a claim. To rebut this claim, the National Center for Science Education launched “Project Steve”, where they solicited scientists named Steve to publicly support evolution. As of today the number of signatories stands at 873. This is to reinforce the fact that darwinian evolution is an almost paradigmatic example of scientific consensus.

So, scientific consensus does not mean scientific unanimity. There is probably no claim which is held by literally every scientist.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2008 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14

It’s interesting to also note that the Hudson Institute has followed the lead of the Discovery Institute in claiming to find “500 scientists” opposed to their pet issue; in this case global warming rather than darwinian evolution.  (See, e.g., HERE). This is interesting, because the Discovery Institute was actually founded by Bruce Chapman who used to be a fellow at the Hudson Institute.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2008 04:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2008-04-07

All good comments from everyone!  Doug, I hope you look further into the current science being published, particularly that from the folks monitoring the sunspot data.  Good stuff coming from the group in Atlanta and at NOAA, if I remember correctly.  Some of the other posters have also noticed that new views are regularly appearing to disagree with the supposed “consensus”.  Your quote from that impressive list of organizations is perfect politics, not science.  Yes, humans must make some contribution.  Who wouldn’t suspect that?  The problem is blaming human activity for all of it or even most of it.  Where’s the data?  I have spent my life both doing and teaching science in high-tech industry so you can be sure that I have good questions to ask these people.

I only mentioned JunkScience.com because it’s a handy resource.  I didn’t imply that Milloy actually does any science.  He sells stuff.

I have read all the data and papers that I can get my hands on and I simply can’t imagine any serious scientist today thinking that the human contribution to global warming is more than anecdotal.  The data speaks for itself, as does the unscrupulous manipulation of the data done by the IPCC and others.  The famous “hockey stick” graph was entirely fabricated.  It’s not OK to only use “some of” the data.  I strongly agree with Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in his talk, “Apocalypse? No!” given at Cambridge.  He points out that it is a moral issue when you deliberately manipulate data in the attempt to create a panic.  Falsification of data is in itself a moral issue.  That’s why science always requires peer review.  That is exactly what is happening now and the IPCC is suffering.

I like to reread several chapters of “Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths” by Ron Bailey, the science editor of Reason Magazine.  It’s a bit old but the foundational data is all there, similar to “The Skeptical Environmentalist”.  Today there are interesting updatings like, “A Primer on CO2 and Climate” by Howard Hayden.  I love the video, “The Great Global Warming Swindle” because several of the most note-worthy climate scientists in the world are providing the data and the discussion, including two who quit the IPCC.

To be fair, I am considering ordering a copy of “Censoring Science” by Mark Bowen, about the attacks on Dr. James Hansen by the Bush Admin.  But I have seen his data and his arguments before and it’s another case of not using all the data nor the most current data available.  But I may have missed something so I will take the time.

If you are a scientist, skepticism is your middle name.  This fiasco has reaffirmed my conviction of that truth.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2008 04:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2008-04-07

I forgot to mention to Doug that his point on using simple numbers for a consensus is well taken.  I added my name to a list of fifteen THOUSAND scientists opposing the Kyoto Treaty.  But how many are “hard” scientists?  How many are actually climatologists or atmospheric scientists?  Does it matter?  With the internet allowing instant participation by millions, few of whom are who they claim to be, I can’t help but think that I’m going with the data and the science, not the opinions of others.

The proof of the pudding is the IPCC itself.  It now has, if I am currently accurate, a hundred and fifty directly participating members who can claim to be scientists, but only two are climatologists.  I haven’t checked for changes this month but that should still be close.  To make matters worse, they are listing social scientists with the physical scientists and biological scientists, too. 

You don’t have to be a climatologist to be able to understand and evaluate these arguments, admittedly.  But preserving the standards of proper scientific practice requires actually knowing what that means.  Folks from outside the research community have little idea how brutal doing science really is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2008 07:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2007-04-26
Rick - 07 April 2008 12:54 PM

  Historically, warmer is better in general, not worse.
.

Rick. How do you support this claim. the world is an awfully complex place and its been a long time since the tmeperature rose significantly and polar ice caps melted. What exactly do you mean by the comment that warmer is better. There are clearly many things that would be worse. The last time sea levels rose 100’s of millions of people didn’t live in areas that are low lying. Trillions of dollars worth of buildings and property that currently stand in those locations weren’t even built at that time. And its difficult to know what these climate changes will do to weather and precipitation patterns.

Our entire gloabal society has evolved around the existing weather patterns and sea levels. Changes in those things will require an upheaval in where we live, where we grow our food, and how or economy works. That will not be easy and many people will be left homeless, starving and poor unless we can predict exactly how this whole thing will play out and plan well in advance. Even if we can do that the costs of altering our society could be staggering.

I haven’t even mentioned the effects on the rest of the creatures that live on this planet.

No doubt the earth will survive and flourish regardless of what happens, but the human race may not do as well. So can you clarify what you meant by that statement?

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2008 08:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2008-04-01
dougsmith - 07 April 2008 02:41 PM

400 scientists is a very small number.

Hi Doug

Yes 400 scientists doesn’t constitute a majority but you said: “virtually the entire scientific community agrees that human-caused global warming is real” this is not accurate, not even in the slightest, I was trying to point out that there is a deep divide in the scientific community regarding this issue.

I am kind of disappointed that you used the attacks on Darwinian evolution by the militant religious groups from the states as part of your argument for “scientific consensus” Darwinian evolution is being battled over by religious fundamentalist groups on one side and scientific community on the other, but on the global warming issue you have the battle being waged on both sides by the scientific community.

For me the global warming issue is about the science, and more specifically the bad science that is being touted by the IPCC, they reject out of hand anything that does not fit within their view of climate change, if it does not include mass extinctions or the earth disappearing in a ball of flames in three weeks time it is not considered. Dr Mann’s hockey stick graph has been thoroughly debunked for the junk science it was yet it made it into the IPCC report and Al Gore’s movie, and there in lies the problem, everyone still remembers the first report with its doom and gloom predictions, and few people take the time to read anything more than the “summary for policy makers” which is aimed at politicians, written by politicians and with political goals in mind, the science is skilfully removed and political rhetoric inserted. A very poor show indeed.

V

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2008 11:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2008-04-07

Good question about the relative benefits of warmer temperatures.  Warmer temperatures in recent times (the Medieval warm period) were beneficial because societies flourished economically in more northerly latitudes.  Some of the great architecture in Europe and Asia would not have been built later, closer to the Maunder Minimum, when temperatures were significantly lower.  Agriculture did very well further north, too, and even wine grapes were grown in Scotland.

The Cretaceous is another good example.  The CO2 levels were fully ten times larger than they are today and life flourished.  The dinosaurs would not have survived without abundant food.  Plants grow very well in higher concentrations of CO2.

These temperature extremes come on very, very slowly historically.  There is plenty of time to adjust.  If sea levels rise, people slowly move in response.  Sea levels have been higher in past ages but only a very small percentage of land was lost to human use.  The number escapes me right now but it’s easy to look up.  There is a good deal of disagreement with how much the ocean level has risen in recent decades and even if that will continue.  A significant element in sea level is the expansion and contraction of the oceans and that is another very, very slow change.

The real problem is ice ages.  Enormous amounts of land become unusable for agriculture.  Today’s population could not be fed easily during an ice age.  Some calculations say that only about one third of the earth’s population could survive during a new ice age.

There’s another fact about warmer temperatures that has failed to be noticed by many people.  It has been known for about 150 years that severe storms, violent weather, is caused by the differences in temperature between the poles and the equator.  That is what drives weather patterns.  Warmer poles means LESS severe storms, not worse ones.  It takes a lot of fabrication to change that very basic scientific principal.  We call it the “delta-T” or difference in temperature.  Heat flows rapidly from a hot place to one that is very much colder, but moves gradually if the two regions are closer to the same temperature.  So the notion of more violent storms with global warming is simply wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2008 11:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05

400 scientists is a very small number.

That’s a huge number when they tell you what you want to hear.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 April 2008 04:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14
Vince - 07 April 2008 08:47 PM

Yes 400 scientists doesn’t constitute a majority but you said: “virtually the entire scientific community agrees that human-caused global warming is real” this is not accurate, not even in the slightest, I was trying to point out that there is a deep divide in the scientific community regarding this issue.

No, there isn’t. To quote my post from above, “no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.”

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 April 2008 05:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2007-04-26
Rick - 07 April 2008 11:18 PM

Good question about the relative benefits of warmer temperatures.  Warmer temperatures in recent times (the Medieval warm period) were beneficial because societies flourished economically in more northerly latitudes.  Some of the great architecture in Europe and Asia would not have been built later, closer to the Maunder Minimum, when temperatures were significantly lower.  Agriculture did very well further north, too, and even wine grapes were grown in Scotland.

The Cretaceous is another good example.  The CO2 levels were fully ten times larger than they are today and life flourished.  The dinosaurs would not have survived without abundant food.  Plants grow very well in higher concentrations of CO2.

These temperature extremes come on very, very slowly historically.  There is plenty of time to adjust.  If sea levels rise, people slowly move in response.  Sea levels have been higher in past ages but only a very small percentage of land was lost to human use.  The number escapes me right now but it’s easy to look up.  There is a good deal of disagreement with how much the ocean level has risen in recent decades and even if that will continue.  A significant element in sea level is the expansion and contraction of the oceans and that is another very, very slow change.

The real problem is ice ages.  Enormous amounts of land become unusable for agriculture.  Today’s population could not be fed easily during an ice age.  Some calculations say that only about one third of the earth’s population could survive during a new ice age.

There’s another fact about warmer temperatures that has failed to be noticed by many people.  It has been known for about 150 years that severe storms, violent weather, is caused by the differences in temperature between the poles and the equator.  That is what drives weather patterns.  Warmer poles means LESS severe storms, not worse ones.  It takes a lot of fabrication to change that very basic scientific principal.  We call it the “delta-T” or difference in temperature.  Heat flows rapidly from a hot place to one that is very much colder, but moves gradually if the two regions are closer to the same temperature.  So the notion of more violent storms with global warming is simply wrong.

I don’t know what your training is, but I’m not sure any of us here are really qualified to be commenting on this subject in any knowledgeable way. That being said I think there are a few general comments that even a non-climatologist can make without sounding too foolish. Obviously there will be some areas of the globe that will have more comfortable and arable climates if the world warms up a bit, but clearly other areas will have worse climates. While the temperate zone will migrate north to areas that are currently too cold for agriculture, tropical areas will also move northward bringing diseases like malaria to places that are now free of this disease. Even if the net effect is zero ( ie. we lose one acre of habitable, productive land for every acre we gain) the ultimate effect will be an economic disaster for most people because of these changes. The people who gain new land will never be the same ones who lost land. People who lose jobs will not be the same ones who gain jobs. Moving entire cities has never been done before, but the cost would be unimaginable if Manhattan and Boston had to be moved along with dozens of other cities worldwide.

I understand your comments about storm severity and temperature, but I think your conclusion is naive. In all fairness, I think anyone who argues a point opposite of your is also on thin ice. The worlds weather system is obviously a very complicated one. There are many things that effect storm severity besides overall average global temperature. I’m not a climatologist, but you don’t have to be to realize that ocean currents, average sunshine, types and amounts of vegetation on the planet and probably uncountable other factors all interplay to cause our weather patterns. About the only thing you can say with some certainty is that patterns will change. Areas that once got plentiful rainfall may get none or too much. Dry areas may become wet and wet areas may become dry. All of these things will create frictional unemployment and human migration that will have dramatic effects and costs if they occur.

I agree that its hard to know exactly how high the sea levels would rise, but there seems to be evidence that a good part of Florida was under 10 feet or more of water in the not to distant past. The exact temperature that is required to cause a given rise in seas levels may be debatable, but it seems to be clear from what I’ve seen that temperatures are not going up slowly. Even if temperatures did rise slowly there is a possibility that the climate has a ‘trip mechanism’ where a positive feedback loop will cause more rapid temperature changes once a certain global temperature is reached. There seem to be some very plausible arguments to support this theory ( ie: loss of snow and ice leading to greater absorption of sunlight causing increase temperatures and more loss of snow and so on)

The fact is that our society is finely tuned and adapted to our current climate. Even small changes will be extremely expensive for humanity to re adapt to. Whether humans are causing it or not. any suggestion that increasing temperatures are a ‘good thing’ and we shouldn’t be concerned is a bit simple minded I think.

[ Edited: 08 April 2008 05:14 AM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 April 2008 06:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2008-04-01

Doug I beg to differ you clearly stated in your first post

dougsmith - 07 April 2008 01:22 PM

Snip…

The real problem for people interested in the science, however, is that virtually the entire scientific community agrees that human-caused global warming is real. For example, note this list of scientific organizations:

Snip…

Emphasis mine I assumed you wrote that, and this was the bit I quoted you on in my first post.

You then went on to say…

dougsmith - 07 April 2008 01:22 PM

Snip…

As Wiki states, “With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.”

Snip…

Ah I see, a quote from that bastion of accurate information on contentious issues the Wiki

I can also see that this is going to descend into a Yes_it_is No_it_isn’t kind of argument which is a bit childish to say the least, and I am not likely to continue.

So I will concede your point with some sarcasm and blunted wit

Of course you are right Doug there is a complete consensus on the global warming issue, everyone is in agreement and it is all mankind’s fault, we have polluted our atmosphere with that dreaded CO2 from the level of 0.0275% to the unprecedented level of 0.035% this is causing thermal runaway and the planet will burst into flames in 5… 4… 3… 2… 1… 0…

V

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 April 2008 06:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2007-06-19
macgyver - 08 April 2008 05:07 AM

The fact is that our society is finely tuned and adapted to our current climate. Even small changes will be extremely expensive for humanity to re adapt to. Whether humans are causing it or not. any suggestion that increasing temperatures are a ‘good thing’ and we shouldn’t be concerned is a bit simple minded I think.

No, the global warming is a good thing for the mankind. Simply define ‘mankind’ as a set which leaves outside the people living in those areas where the global warming would destroy crops (it is not hard, they are mainly in the thirld world) wink

Now seriously, maybe we won’t never be 100% sure about GW, but I see a lot of reasons to be catious with this issue. Moreover, we will have to replace hydrocarbons sometime, so it is not a bad idea to start with the researchs to avoid a ugly and violent conflict in the future.

[ Edited: 08 April 2008 06:48 AM by Barto ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 April 2008 06:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2007-06-19
Vince - 08 April 2008 06:21 AM

we have polluted our atmosphere with that dreaded CO2 from the level of 0.0275% to the unprecedented level of 0.035% this is causing thermal runaway and the planet will burst into flames in 5… 4… 3… 2… 1… 0…

V

Well, the 0.0275% to 0.035% increase is huge in almost every complex system. I don’t want to experience a 30% increase in my potassium concentration in blood (from 4,8 mEq/l to 7,7 mEq/l for instance)

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 4
1
 
‹‹ Thermodinamics      Twins ››